I want to start this blog by explaining what I mean by terrorist. A terrorist is someone who uses fear or violence to promote an ideology, religion or, in this case, political party. There is a difference between simply speaking genuine fears and concerns out loud, and deliberately (and often deceptively) trying to terrify people to manipulate them.

What made me think of this was a segment on The Rachel Maddow Show about the proposed legislation in Uganda to make homosexuality punishable by death. She had on her show an american evangelist whose book had been cited by the people proposing and supporting this legislation. In his book he had claimed (falsely) that gays were vastly more likely to molest children, gay teachers were vastly more likely to have sex with their students, etc. This of course has no basis in science, but was stated as if it had been proven. And in uganda it’s being held up as a justification for treating gay people like a disease that must be eradicated or else someone will fuck your kids.

This, in my opinion, is social/political terrorism. It is no more legitimate or moral than shouting fire in a crowded theater.

This has been kicking around in my head the last day or so and got me thinking about people like Glenn Beck.

As I said it’s one thing to voice genuine concerns – if it were actually true that gay people were much more likely to molest kids, that would be something else. But it isn’t. So it’s not.

And when Glenn Beck goes on his show and takes a quote out of context from a speech about expanding the peace corps and compares him to Saddam Hussein creating a private army and Adolf Hitler creating the Waffen SS, how is that different?

Is it egregious enough to be called terrorism when he says that Americorps (the domestic equivalent of the peace corps which is apparently obama’s other private army), has a budget of “half a trillion dollars” (1 billion in reality) and has a guy in full military dress explain how dangerous this non-military organization is?

I remember years ago seeing propaganda films shown to people in muslim theocracies. One video was of muslim children in israeli hospitals with bandages on their eyes, and the voiceover said that what you were seeing was muslim children who have had their eyes removed to give to jewish children.

I tend to agree. I think if we’re really going to get into the semantics of the word “terrorism,” as a certain person here already has, it’s true that the connotation is that terrorism must include some sort of violence. (Of course, the connotation of many words as taken by the general public in all its gullibility often doesn’t correspond to what they mean. And I think if you want a wishy-washy answer to your question, using a wishy-washy definition is perfectly acceptable… But if you actually want a legit answer, then using the dictionary definition would be far more appropriate.)Anyway. I would definitely consider Glenn Beck a terrorist, though to be fair, I’m sure there are some liberal people in the media who resort to the same tactics. But Glenn Beck is pretty much the most popular person in the media today. And the point remains that he simply shouldn’t be using the tactics that he’s using on a so-called “news” station. Of course, I think everyone realizes that it’s not actually a news station but a propaganda one by now, but whatever.@The_James_Blog – “And so I plead the 5th. “Then be silent already.

Glenn Beck employs hyperbole a great deal, that doesn’t make him a terrorist. I suggest the post smells of hyperbole as well. That doesn’t make you a terrorist either *lol*. To say Glenn Beck’s program is a political weapon? Come on guys, seriously. When I read it, I thought you were doing Jon Stewart styled satire. I think if someone murders Obama, they should be considered a terrorist, but wiser to charge him with treason. But, Beck can’t be considered responsible for the actions of another person. I believe that we have free will, and if someone assassinated our president, I think the hyperbole is merely a rationalization for something much deeper. What if your post “caused” some lunatic to murder Glenn Beck, does that make you responsible and therefore a terrorist? I would still say “No, that person is responsible for their own actions.” The reality is, there are tons of different ideas floating around on the internet, and a lot of inaccuracies. We can’t prevent inaccuracies or ideas from being expressed just because we fear the possible consequences. The whole idea of pre-emptive law enforcement has been fully discredited by almost any sane and even minded person for quite a while.

When dealing with terrorism claims, there’s sort of the broad approach and the narrow approach. Under the broad approach, you use the book definition and you get that the murder of George Tiller is terrorism and the Fort Hood Shooting is terrorism and Virginia Tech Shooting is terrorism and the Holocaust Museum Shooting is terrorism and you can even go so far as to say that powerful Nation States including the United States regularly engage in terrorism, most notably in predator drone bombings. Under that broad definition then if anything Glenn Beck does or says results in violence then of course it’s clear retroactively that he has been engaging in terrorism.In this though I’m more in line with the Obama administration in reserving the term terrorist for the most egregious examples. The term “terrorism” is way over used and doesn’t really add very much to the discussion at all. It’s usually just a way for someone to claim a little bit more of an edge of moral superiority over someone else. And its commonality causes people to use it in all kinds of situations where it doesn’t apply as in the “colluding with terrorists” examples on the right and the left.I’d rather talk about the fact that Glenn Beck is using hate speech and inciting violence and being super irresponsible in his role as an influential television personality, then to talk about whether or not he’s technically a “terrorist”.There’s no doubt he’s a reprehensible human being though and if anything bad comes of what he’s said I hope he is held responsible to the full extent of the law. But I still hold out hope that most people are not so crazy as to act out as if they were a part of Glenn Beck’s fantasy world. Though that’s probably naivete on my part.

How about another concept. Say I have an extreme hatred of David Hasseloff. I begin to tell crazy stories about how he is a werewolf at night and enjoys eating people’s livestock and children. The next day someone shoots poor David with a silver bullet and it kills him, should I be considered responsible for that? I mean, any rational person should know, first of all, that its crazy. Do we ban any talk about werewolves from there on or even before hand? Or, do we use calm, intellectual discourse to prove that Hasseloff is in fact not a werewolf, but a werecat? I think discourse works better.

@nephyo – “Though that’s probably naivete on my part.” Nah, overwhelmingly, I believe people are rational. People act on what they know. If you disagree with what Beck says, you should just tell people so and explain why. I think where most people screw up on this: a. The left has become very bitter and superior. b. Due to this, and whatever motivation, would rather use the chance to convince someone instead to come down on them as hard as they can. c. Before, they would at least try to convince people. I remember back in the early Bush days. d. People see this inconsistency and it puts a brick wall up where open, calm discourse should be happening. e. They also see the left in the same light that they used to see the neo-cons, and wonder why they should trust the left anymore than they should trust the neo-cons.

Its interesting. It reminds me of cases where KKK leaders pass out pamphlets saying how terrible non-whites are, and give speeches about how non-whites should be killed, and then when a KKK follower kills someone, the leaders argue that they are protected by “free speech.”Slander and libel (depending on the medium) can be difficult to prove (proof of malicious intent is often necessary), and fighting big corporations in court can be exhausting.Really, the question here is not whether or not Beck is a terrorist, but whether he is protected by law to say what he wants to say.Personally? I think that news media should be required to state when they are expressing something that is not factually based. Different segments should be expressed with a disclaimer that the statements expressed are opinion-based, and not fact-based. It would act like a “smoking kills” warning on a pack of cigarettes, I think.The fourth estate is really mutating into something terrifying.

@QuantumStorm – Past to present comparison flaw here. Why is McCarthyism not a valid response to discussing the idea that Beck may be a terrorist, due to his misrepresentation of facts and his efforts to incite violence and fear? Think about it.

The coward will just hide behind the veil of “Freedom of Speech.” They do this all the time like with Dr Tiller’s murderer, crazy gun nuts shooting at law enforcement officers because they think the government is out to get them, etc. They’ll egg these whackos to do their dirty work, and once it’s done, they can show their hands have no blood on them.

@Casbahmaniac – Speaking from his brain would require that he actually KNOWS something, lol. The man’s just a hate monger, not much more valuable than the shit he spews nightly. At least his show should be cancelled. No one’s benefiting from it.

Ugh. I can’t stand Glenn Beck. I do find the tidbit about Americorps highly amusing though, especially since I’m considering it for my after-college plans… How awesome would it be to join Pres. Obama’s “personal army”? rofl! Maybe I’ll get an assignment to take out Beck.

@IntrospectiveOctober – McC dealt with issues of sedition and terrorism (in a different sense, like with the Red Menace) but used ethically questionable tactics (i.e. fearmongering) to the extreme. What Beck does is no different, and describing him in terms that, while valid from a denotation standpoint, can carry more extreme connotations, doesn’t help.

@QuantumStorm – “Wait, so a correlation or a sharedsentiment means one supports the other? For example, if you and Isupport the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, does that mean we’re sidingwith the terrorists because some of them share that sentiment too?”Well yeah. But the mere fact that you agree with something that al qaeda thinks is true isn’t what was being pointed out – what was being pointed out is that al qaeda and the republican leadership were basically the only people on the planet who held that view.And again, if you want to call bullshit on that comment, that’s fine. It’s a dickish, cheap political shot. But it is not comparable to what I’m talking about.”Again,you’re accusing Bush of the very same thing that you’re overlookinghere. Bush said that if we didn’t support the war, we were supportingthe terrorists” No, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the campaign ads he ran implying that if you vote for kerry or a “liberal” then terrorists will kill your family. And again, you’ve not dealt with the examples in my blog which are far less ambiguous.”- the DNC comm. guy is saying the same thing by pointingout that since the Repubs aren’t supporting Obama and the Nobel Prize,then they’re supporting the terrorists – as a taxpayer, if I wasconvinced of such a claim, I would be worried and afraid, and cowedinto not voting GOP or anything other than Democrat. If the DNC didn’tmean that seriously I’d love to see a retraction.”That doesn’t make no sense. The republicans agreeing with terrorist groups in their attacks on the president makes them look bad, it doesn’t mean they’re a physical threat to you.I’m not talking about mudslinging in general, I’m talking about making up shit that isn’t true, which if it were true would justify violence to at least some people.

@The_James_Blog – Alright well glad we got that straightened out.Sorry for thinking you were being a dick.@leaflesstree – Well it’s good that the lone conservative agreed, lol. Unfortunately on a college campus it’s preaching to the choir.@tracezilla@lovelyish – I’m not sure about the “needs to be stopped” thing, but I know oreilly had been going after him for years, calling him “tiller tiller the baby killer” over and over etc. And at the time his was the number 1 news show in the country.@explosive – Glad someone agrees. I had a bunch of comments and no rec’s, I thought no one wanted their name on this one. I go watch a movie and come back and have 6 recs, lol. So thanks guys.

@alampi – ?@SerenaDante – I’m sure glenn beck isn’t the only person to ever make up outrageous things about someone, but I doubt there are any in the “liberal” media that do so with the consistency and extreme that he and others enjoy, knowing the president won’t go after them for libel. If I were him when his term(s) of office were over I would spend the next several years suing all of them one after another.@DarthPatriot – “Glenn Beck employs hyperbole a great deal,that doesn’t make him a terrorist. I suggest the post smells ofhyperbole as well. That doesn’t make you a terrorist either *lol*. Tosay Glenn Beck’s program is a political weapon? Come on guys,seriously. When I read it, I thought you were doing Jon Stewart styledsatire. I think if someone murders Obama, they should be considered aterrorist, but wiser to charge him with treason. But, Beck can’t beconsidered responsible for the actions of another person. I believethat we have free will, and if someone assassinated our president, Ithink the hyperbole is merely a rationalization for something muchdeeper. What if your post “caused” some lunatic to murder Glenn Beck,does that make you responsible and therefore a terrorist?” I am not doing to glenn beck what I am accusing him of. If I wrote a blog falsely claiming that glenn beck was planning to rape your daughter, and you believed it and murdered him, I would be in violation of several laws. In fact, I would be in violation of the law the second I stated something about him which was not true, and then guilty of homicide if you murdered him based on that lie. What glenn beck does is largely illegal. What I’m criticizing him for is legally outside of the bounds of free speech.He is no more allowed to say the president has created his version of the Waffen SS and given them 500 billion dollars to buy guns than I am legally allowed to say someone is planning to rape your daughter (unless of course it’s true). However it is a civil matter, not a criminal one (yet), and he knows the president will not persue a civil remedy, ie suing his ass.”I wouldstill say “No, that person is responsible for their own actions.” Thereality is, there are tons of different ideas floating around on theinternet, and a lot of inaccuracies.” Making shit up about people is illegal. You know this right?”We can’t prevent inaccuracies orideas from being expressed just because we fear the possibleconsequences.” Wtf are you talking about? You’re acting like he’s a journalist who accidentally got the story wrong.”The whole idea of pre-emptive law enforcement has beenfully discredited by almost any sane and even minded person for quite awhile.”Have I said anything about law enforcement, preemptive or otherwise?

In his book he had claimed (falsely) that gays were vastly more likely to molest children, gay teachers were vastly more likely to have sex with their students, etc. This of course has no basis in science, but was stated as if it had been proven. It may not have been proven or have any basis in science but a fact is a fact. take for example, the list created by the group that kevin jennings, safe school czar. bathroom cruising for sex, masturbation, boy to men sex, grammar students having sex in bathroom. they are sickening topics. here is the actual site for glsen. on to the topic at hand. yes glenn beck is getting annoying. he should stop his incoherent jibberish. it was funny at first but everyday?

@nephyo -I’m pretty sure crazy people do exist. And did you think any of the examples in my blog are bad enough to call terrorism?@DarthPatriot – I don’t think there’s any comparison between that and the carefully crafted propaganda we’re talking about which literally millions of people believe. Again glenn beck’s show rose to the number one news show in the country and the president gets 30 death threats a day.This isn’t crazy werewolf shit people laugh off, it’s shit lots and lots of people buy into.@another_rebel_without_a_cause – I think one guy mentioned it. Though this blog isn’t really about that particular aspect of his sleaze.@IntrospectiveOctober – That’s a good idea.@coolmonkey – Pretty much. They only care about number 1.@ashiri7016 – Yeah, I like how beck pretends he’s living in an orwellian dictatorship while enjoying total freedom of speech to the point of actually being able to break the law regularly without fear of retribution from the “powers that be”.@DrugInducedDuck – Slander and libel are not protected by the first ammendment. You aren’t allowed to lie about people. He breaks the law all the time.@QuantumStorm – This is a xanga blog, not a NY times editorial. I’m floating an idea, not changing the world.

@agnophilo – //No, that’s not what I’m talkingabout. I’m talking about the campaign ads he ran implying that if youvote for kerry or a “liberal” then terrorists will kill your family. And again, you’ve not dealt with the examples in my blog which are farless ambiguous.//Implying? Implying??? He didn’t even explicitly make the claim and you’re going off an implication? Please provide the explicit examples. I could just as easily point out that the DNC guy’s statement implies that if you don’t support Obama, you support the killer terrorists who will kill your family. //I’m not talking about mudslinging ingeneral, I’m talking about making up shit that isn’t true, which if itwere true would justify violence to at least some people.//For example, saying that person A is supporting the terrorists by disagreeing with B. It’s an offense that, if it were factually correct, would justify some sort of reactive response by the people in an attempt to protect themselves and their families.

@supsoo – I’m sorry, but even if I granted the idea that the guy your article was attacking was a child molester (which of course is idiotic) it still would not support the ideas you are calling “facts”.

@agnophilo – Aaaand…? It’s not really different when some creationist Xangan starts talking about a possible explanation for the dinosaurs – sure, ideas are being floated, but that doesn’t mean we’ll go any easier on them to make them defend their positions. (Just do me a favor and don’t turn into that girl who whined about me criticizing her positions on vegetarianism).

@QuantumStorm – So I asked you to deal with the examples in my blog rather than get further off-point on the george bush thing, so you completely ignore them?Thanks, I appreciate it.And yes, talking about terrorists in uber-scary language and tone while showing wolves in the forest and then the wolves charging the camera when suggesting you vote for a liberal is implying that voting for a liberal is dangerous. And yes, you could claim that the DNC guy was implying the same thing, but you and I and anyone with any common sense would know you were full of shit.

@agnophilo – but you have to admit that the list of books on glsen’s site is pretty disturbing. we can’t teach our children to abstine from sex but we can tell them to have sex in school bathroom? you have to admit that kevin jennings is a weird guy.

@agnophilo – Example, not examples. Remember we are talking about what Beck said, and even in that case you’re not even citing what he said directly; rather, you’re going off a FactCheck site that refers to a claim made by a State Rep, not by Beck or even Bush. If you can provide the information regarding such an explicit lie then please do so. //And yes, you could claim that the DNC guywas implying the same thing, but you and I and anyone with any commonsense would know you were full of shit.//Demonstrate. Your argument is based on an implication and is equally full of shit.

@supsoo – When I was in the earliest grade these books are recommended for (and they are only recommended for gay students) the book I read that year was To Kill A Mockingbird. This book is widely considered the best book ever written, but if I wanted to scare parents like this article is trying to do, I could describe it as “a book with themes such as rape and lynching, where a man is stabbed to death and the local authorities decide to cover it up as an accident, which the book teaches was the moral thing to do.”That description is technically accurate, and completely full of shit, as anyone who has ever read the book could tell you that the man who was stabbed to death was trying to murder a child at the time and the police called it an accident because the man who saved the kids’ lives was a recluse and the praise he would get from the townspeople would be more of a punishment than a reward. And the fact that rape was played out in a courtroom as a false charge, and the man who the guy who got stabbed (and others) tried to lynch was protected by the good guys.Growing up in my early teens I read books with sexual descriptions (actually those were the most interesting), and with lots of murder and various other “adult” themes. In treasure island, a classic book, which is generally considered the book every young boy ought to read growing up and has been since the late 1800s, in this book many people are murdered, and a young boy kills a man with two pistols. There’s a graphic description of an innocent man having his neck broken, etc.And it’s a damn fine book and if I ever have a son or daughter I’ll gladly buy them a copy.

@QuantumStorm – “Example, not examples. Remember we aretalking about what Beck said, and even in that case you’re not evenciting what he said directly; rather, you’re going off a FactCheck sitethat refers to a claim made by a State Rep, not by Beck or even Bush.If you can provide the information regarding such an explicit lie thenplease do so.”No, you douchebag. I gave several examples in my blog, more than one from glenn beck and several others from other people. I asked if all of them qualified as “terrorism” because of the violence they could likely generate (and btw in uganda they’re trying to execute or imprison the entire gay population based on what some asshole said in a book).”Demonstrate. Your argument is based on an implication and is equally full of shit.”Are you a child molester? It’s possibly you’ve fucked two children today.I’m not saying you are, I’m just implying it. And I’m sure if I implied it on national TV ten or twenty times and you got some shit for it, that would be fine with you, right?

@QuantumStorm – I don’t think so, and I don’t think you can or have supported that.If someone committed slander or libel against anyone I’d criticize them too. If it was extreme slander that could produce a violent response and the person they were smearing were getting 30 death threats a day do you think I’d look the other way?

@agnophilo – You’re claiming that Beck lied outright. Not to mention, you still haven’t provided the commercial you’re speaking of.And saying something is “possible” still doesn’t change the fact that your argument is full of shit. An implication is as factually empty as a drunken ramble. You’re trying to say that they made a factual error, and then fall back to an implication and no actual, hard evidence of a factual error on Beck’s part. Your “example” is irrelevant and a distraction to your lack of argument. // I gave several examples in my blog, more than one from glenn beck and several others from other people.//I’m not going to take a person’s words for face-value when they say “John Doe said X”. Provide me with a citation, a link, something more substantial than hearsay. You had one example from FactCheck – which had nothing to do with Beck as far as your argument is concerned.

@agnophilo – //If someone committed slander or libel against anyone I’d criticize them too.//Criticizing is one thing; using terms that you and I know have much more negative connotations in today’s society is another. You know very well the connotation of the term terrorist in common parlance; otherwise you would not have had the need to qualify your usage of the term. If you’re trying to distance yourself from what Beck is doing, calling him a “terrorist” doesn’t help your case. You’re basically taking the same libelous and slanderous route of which you accuse Beck, especially considering you haven’t provided a single piece of clear evidence of Beck committing a terrorist act except from your own hearsay.If you can do that, you’d have a good argument (and given Beck’s tendency towards idiocy, I doubt that that would be hard).

from yoru comments can i assume that you condone pedophilia, restroom hopping, grammar school children having sex in bathroom, rape and many other acts. also i believe to kill a mockingbird was about the injustice in the south during the early 1900’s. please do not confuse. “the great debater” has discrimination, lynching, and many acts but i don’t think the premise of it was to condone discrimination, lynching and others. please do not confuse.

@agnophilo – I know that of course. But, what I do understand about the law is that it is meant to protect you from false attacks on your character that could destroy your life. What little I know about Beck is that he does not actually attempt to employ these sorts of attacks, but attempts to draw connections between Obama and various “social justice” group. Whether you agree with the connections or not is of course beside the point on this topic. If anything, he might be guilty of being wrong. I think to draw the conclusion that he is attempting to falsify data to push an agenda really is more about guess work than anything. I prefer cold hard facts. The fact is that we know spokespersons, lawyers, politicians, and professional public speakers employ hyperbole. This is where something is said, and meant to be an extreme exaggeration to either get the point across or keep people awake in what would otherwise be a very boring speech. You can disagree that this is a ethical strategy, and to some degree, I agree. My view, of course, prevents me from watching Beck or Olberman at any significant length of time without turning the TV off, or turning it to National Geographic. But I think what supsoo is trying to say is that this Jennings guy has a questionable reading list for minors. Its actually kinda creepy if you read about it. I wonder sometimes why anyone thinks its necessary to attempt to change social norms through the educational system. Ultimately, the general person has the meanest of accesses to the general curriculum of their kid’s school. This is why I would be willing to compromise for a private voucher system. There are questionable things about some of the things happening in government, people get outraged by it, and someone like Beck becomes popular because that is all his show talks about is the things that outrage those people. But, I really think the case is against him being a terrorist, or its an uphill battle at least. If we can call Beck a terrorist, we might as well lock up Coulter, Moore, and Grayson with him. I guess we could even force publishers to rewrite all of the Oral Communication text books as well, because after all, it encourages you to use hyperbole as a means of keeping your audiences attention. While we are at it, we could even start controlling what goes on the internet, and whatever ideologues have power for the moment could start using this as a spring board to further their agendas while at the same time, preventing alternative views from surfacing. I mean, we already limit ballot access so third parties have to spend the majority of their time and resources in courts and getting petitions signed, leaving them little room to get their face out to the public. Why not this as well?

I think it’s sad that you have to define the word “terrorist.” People hear the word terrorist and they think of someone with a bomb strapped to their chest. Thanks George W, for that… “War on Terrorism” BS. I called my ex-roommate’s BF a terrorist…not because he wanted to blow up the government, but because he used words and gestures to threaten and intimidate.I think lots of people are terrorists.

I think the problem you’re having is with labels. I think Glenn Beck IS playing with fire… I do think FOX and any deliberately manipulative “news” channel should be legally sanctioned… I do NOT think Beck is a terrorist.You’re mixing definitions. I’m only wrapping up my first semester of law school, so I’m not nearly as much help as someone else could be, but this small point needs to be made: definitions in the legal word are different than your regular dictionary definitions. They are “terms of art.” So, that said, I looked up the American legal definition of terrorism.”(2) the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivatedviolence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groupsor clandestine agents;” [U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)]I think your examples and analogies are sound – but I don’t think your label of Beck is correct. There must be a better word to sufficiently describe what he’s doing. Not sure what it is at the moment though.

Wow. Talk about a complete and utter failure at logic!So Glenn Beck is a terrorist. And why exactly? Because Glenn Beck sometimes says outrageous things, apparently. But that’s protected by the Constitution. But of course we have the “fire in the crowded theater” hypothetical example of a time when free speech must be curtailed.Then again, the reason why falsely shouting fire is wrong is that it directly creates a panic that causes injury. The farther removed we are from the words spoken and the actions taken, the longer and less slippery our slope gets. This is why the courts have now specified that the speech must be purposefully directed toward causing “imminent lawless action” and likely to do so (Brandenburg v. Ohio [1969]).So what exactly is the proof that Beck’s words create “imminent lawless action”? That death threats against the President are up over 400 percent. Even if that were true (news flash: IT’S NOT) what direct path has been established between Beck raising the spectre of a “civilian security force”–which he was hardly alone in doing–and any threats on the President?But wait, we have further proof! We have some proposed legislation in Uganda that makes homosexuality punishable by death. And we see that a book written by an American evangelist is being used as justification. And…none of these people are Glenn Beck.But wait, we have films in the Middle East spreading anti-Semitic propoganda. And…Glenn Beck is nowhere to be found.So the justification for calling Beck a terrorist is that he once said something you don’t like, there’s a false rumor of an increase of death threats against the President, and crappy stuff happens around the world. Hellooooooooo equivocation!So riddle me this, Angophilo. If a random idiot sends me a death threat, can I have you arrested for some of the comments you’ve posted on my site?

@agnophilo – For it to be slander or libel, someone would have to prove that someone was directly negatively effected by it, like someone lost their job because of it, and solely because of it. People are allowed to lie as much as they want, as long as it doesn’t ruin someone else.

@agnophilo – That’s quite alright. I didn’t realize how insanely retarded my logic was malfunctioning until it was too late. That’s what a week of high stress and minimal sleep will do to me evidently. Just be glad you weren’t with me the rest of the day, as it quickly ran further downhill until I finally collapsed. I am rested and functioning properly now, so I can now post intelligible comments.